Pentagon and Obama offer very little reform of military spending
I’m here to sign the checks
Daylife/Reuters Pictures used by permission
The United States should give up the capability to fight two major ground wars simultaneously, according to a Pentagon review that will be presented this week, [said the inevitable unnamed] U.S. official.
Chris Lawrence plays into the Pentagon PR boys just like Wolf always did. The only difference is he won’t receive the Marvin Kalb Award for undercover service to the Mossad.
The review will be publicly outlined by President Barack Obama, the White House announced. The president will join Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Thursday at the Pentagon to discuss the military posture vision.
The official [same guy, I guess], who was not authorized to speak publicly, said the strategic review presents priorities to guide the military into the future, but “they are proposals, not all of them set in stone.”
The review sets forth potentially big changes in U.S. strategy, including, the official said, removing up to 4,000 troops from Europe and downsizing the overall ground forces even further. The 2012 budget request already called for cuts of 27,000 soldiers and 20,000 Marines in the next four years, and those numbers could increase.
The military would not maintain its ability to wage two large conflicts at the same time, such as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan, the official said. But the United States would still be able to deploy troops and equipment to “deter a second adversary” while engaged in a major ground conflict.
We spent hundreds of billion$ just on Iraq-specific armored troop carriers
The official said the report is not expected to call for massive cuts to weapons programs.
The least useful of Keynesian economic gambits is the production of non-consumable goods. One of the significant reasons for maintaining the Cold War. The reason why Congress and the White House rubber-stamp military spending.
The review took eight months, the official said, and builds upon themes from the Quadrennial Defense Review conducted in 2010. That QDR called for greater cooperation between services, particularly the Air Force and Navy…
The review was conducted in light of potential limits on federal spending and the need to reduce the Pentagon’s budget.
Currently, the Pentagon is committed to nearly half a trillion dollars in cuts over the next decade and could be on the hook for another half trillion dollars if Congress does not find a way around automatic cuts that enacted after the failure to reach an agreement on the federal budget.
Our forces are deployed to protect us from which “enemies” exactly? Who’s threatening to invade the United States? And what else can a ground force achieve but combat on the ground – except to display the arrogance of an imperial nation showing the world it can keep an eye on 176 countries?
The dollar$ wasted on troops abroad + Bush’s War on Iraq + Bush/Obama War on Afghanistan = more than our entire fiscal deficit.
Lawrence whined on camera. this morning, about worries of returning troops becoming part of the load of homeless. That’s a criticism of domestic policy not military policy. Just one more example of a Congress too caught up in fronting for corporate wealth. There are no well-funded lobbyists for the unemployed and homeless.
The cost of maintaining troops on home soil is less than half the cost of maintaining them abroad. Military economics 101. You learn that your freshman year at West Point. We could always put US-domiciled troops to work rebuilding infrastructure. Even though it would accomplish something useful for a change.